No, the Red Cross did not use MMS to cure Malaria

An article from NaturalNews, and an accompanying video, claims that the Red Cross has used the “Miracle Mineral Supplement” (MMS) to cure Malaria, a mosquito driven disease that is caused by the parasite Plasmodium. This claim has since been repudiated by the Red Cross who state that they had no affiliation with the makers of this video and that they have never used MMS in a trial to cure Malaria.

MMS (also called Master Mineral Supplement) is a solution of 28% Sodium Chlorite in distilled water. Marketed as a cure for multiple medical conditions including Autism, HIV, Hepatitis, Influenza, Cancer and now Malaria. Sodium Chlorite itself is toxic, and can result in kidney failure at large doses, with lesser dosages resulting in milder symptoms such as nausea and vomiting.

Depending on the marketing, users are instructed to add a mild acid such as lime or lemon juice to the mixture. This would create a solution called chlorine dioxide, which is used as an industrial bleach and is extremely toxic. Thankfully the doses recommended by purveyors of MMS are not typically fatal and only result in nausea and vomiting, dehydration and other moderate reactions. However, there have been some cases of severe reactions.

In August of 2009 a woman died while taking MMS as a preventative for Malaria. Before then, in 2008 an elderly man was hospitalized and nearly died as a result of taking MMS. The supplement is illegal in Canada, where its Health Department stated:

Miracle Mineral Solution provides approximately 200 times more sodium chlorite than the tolerable daily intake of sodium chlorite in water established by Health Canada.

Other regulatory organizations, notably the FDA, have stated unequivocally that MMS neither works for any of the medical conditions it claims to, nor is it safe for human consumption.

Claims without Evidence

No real study has been done of MMS in humans. As far as I’m aware no study has been done in animals. This is because the claims made by pushers of MMS are scientifically ludicrous.

The primary ingredient, Sodium Chlorite, is itself toxic. This doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be medicinal: chemotherapy is essentially a toxin. That’s why people’s hair falls out, they become nauseated and their immune system is suppressed when they’re on it. But chemotherapy and MMS have nothing in common.

Sodium Chlorite is lethal at 10 grams. Even at doses as low as 1 gram it can cause nausea, vomiting and a condition called hemolysis, which is the rupturing of blood cells. This condition itself can be fatal.

If Sodium Chlorite weren’t bad enough, MMS proponents instruct users to add citric acid to the supplement. This turns the Sodium Chlorite into Chlorine Dioxide. Chlorine Dioxide is a potent bleach, used in the manufacturing of wood pulp, industrial water treatment and disinfectant. It is extremely toxic in moderate doses and has no known health benefits if ingested.

Despite this, and the fact that this treatment produces a toxic chemical, proponents of MMS make wild claims about its efficacy in treating almost any medical condition. This is laughable on its face: something that treats a viral infection wouldn’t do much good against a bacterium, against a fungus, or against cancer. They are very different medical conditions and require very different treatments. It’s the same reason why antibiotics aren’t effective against viruses.

MMS proponents, the chief of which is Jim Humble, have yet to offer a mechanism for why this substance would cure a single disease, let alone a perform clinical trial. Compare that to chemotherapy which produces similar symptoms (nausea and vomiting) but has clear evidence of its efficacy. Chemotherapy works by killing cells in your body. It does this by preventing mitosis, or cell reproduction, and tends to work on fast-acting cell divisions, most of which are cancerous cells. Sadly, the chemotherapy can’t really tell the difference between cancer and regular cells, which is why people get very sick while using it. But the mechanism for why it works is very well understood and it has mountains of evidence backing up its efficacy.

Compare that to MMS which has an underground following but no science to prove its effectiveness. In fact, proponents have yet to provide a reasonably mechanism why such a substance would work. Why would industrial bleach cure any disease, let alone a myriad of diseases which have different behaviors in the body?

Malaria, The Red Cross, and Uganda

Enter the Malaria in Uganda video. In it Jim Humble describes the efforts of the Red Cross to cover up the “evidence” of MMS’s efficacy. He claims that the individuals treated with MMS had a 100% cure rate. Read that again: 100% of patients, so claims the video, were cured of Malaria, in a single day.

I’m not aware of any medical intervention that has a 100% effectiveness. The human body is complex and although some treatments are very effective, there are still outliers. One of my neurology teachers told me this: there are no absolutes, especially in biology.

In addition, Malaria cannot be “cured” in a day. But that’s what the video describes. In the video, which shows aid workers wearing Red Cross t-shirts and does appear to show some individuals who work for, or perhaps volunteer with, the Red Cross administering treatments, we are told that individuals treated with MMS were checked for Malaria a day after treatment and showed no signs of Malaria. Typical Malaria treatment, which is 90% effective, takes about two weeks. The parasite itself can remain dormant in the liver for several years on rare occasions.

The claims that MMS cured Malaria with 100% effectiveness in 24 hours is ridiculous. In order for that to be effective it would have to be capable of killing every single parasite within the host. There is no known mechanism by which industrial bleach can do that, at least not at the dosage used with MMS. The amount of MMS that would actually kill plasmodium parasites would kill the host, probably before it even had time to get to all the parasites.

The video also claims that the Red Cross is operating a conspiracy to hide these results. Which begs the question: what conspiracy is capable of strong arming an independent, international medical association but is incapable of removing a single Youtube video?

The narrative, as explained by Jim Humble and Leo Koehof, who is the CEO of the Water Reference Center (which has also dissociated itself from this trial) and the driving force behind the “study”. He also states that he is a former member of the Belgian Special Forces, a claim that doesn’t appear to have any bearing on the present study, and one that I’ve no desire to fact-check.

Koehoff, who narrates the bulk of the video, claims that he was asked to come to a small Ugandan village as the “guest of the Ugandese [sic] Red Cross”. It is implied by the video that Koehoff was asked by the Red Cross to test MMS on the Ugandan population. According to the video, the success rate was 100% within 24 hours.

Now, I’m not saying that’s impossible. It is just better than any other known medical intervention of which I am aware.

But the crux of the video is that after the trial was completed the Red Cross, who had (according to Koehoff) invited them to Uganda, later attempted to cover-up their research. The Red Cross denies both of these allegations.

Essentially we are asked to believe the makers of this unsourced video over the Red Cross. In the end, there’s nothing I can write that will convince anyone who is unwilling to believe the Red Cross at their word. If you’re a person who is willing to believe NaturalNews over the Red Cross I’ll just ask you this: Which is more likely: that a non-profit organization whose stated mission is to treat illnesses such as Malaria denies a treatment that is both effective and cheap because they are a member of a cabal designed to discredit an individual (Jim Humble) with no scientific or medical training whose miracle cure defies the known laws of science, or these people are lying?

Edit: 2/21/16 @ 8:52 AM

Twitter User @pjvanerp brought something to my attention earlier today which I frankly hadn’t investigated: the test that Koehoff used was probably ineffective and the individuals who originally tested positive for Malaria were most likely false positives. I couldn’t find any data on the false positive rate of the Rapid Diagnostic Test for Malaria, but on the WHO website this statement:

Ultimately, it is important that both sensitivity and specificity remain high, so that both malaria and non-malarial fevers receive appropriate management. However sometimes it may be more important to have very high sensitivity even at the expense of high specificity, as a missed parasitaemia may lead to death of a patient.

caught my attention. The WHO (rightly so) prefers a more sensitive test (i.e. more prone to false positives) than a high specificity test (which would be more prone to false negatives). In other words they’d rather have people misdiagnosed with Malaria than have someone who has malaria not diagnosed. And when you’re running field trials this makes sense because you can’t afford to wait a couple of days for a lab test from somewhere possibly hundreds of miles away.

It is possible that the initial Malaria test was a false positive. Sadly there’s no way to know either way. The video does show that the diagnosis was “confirmed” in a lab some days later, and even has an individual in a white lab coat speaking to the camera. Her name is “Betty” and she is listed as a “Senior Clinician”. Where she’s a senior clinician at I’m not sure. She states:

We have many people with Malaria, but after giving them the treatment, all of them, they have no parasite, of Malaria.

Which seems to support Koehoff’s claims. Or her statement could be taken out of context, and she may have been speaking of another treatment. Or she could simply be mistaken. Or she could be lying. There’s no way to know since her last name isn’t given and where she is a “Senior Clinician” at isn’t mentioned.

As far as the protocol of the trial, it is written in a way that may make it prone to False Positives. Individuals were screened in the field for Malaria. Those who were found positive were given the treatment and their bloodwork was sent to the lab for confirmation. It’s not clear in the video which happened first, or if additional blood work was taken the next day and sent to the lab as well. Twenty-four hours later the individuals were asked to return and they were tested for Malaria. It isn’t mentioned if this was performed by the RDT or by a lab clinician, but I’ll wager it was the RDT. What I think is likely, and it’s hard to determine this from the video, is that the initial RDT was a false positive, which was confirmed by the lab a few days later. In the interim between the RDT and the lab work the individuals received the MMS treatment which “cured” the Malaria they didn’t even have. The lab work later confirmed their lack of Malaria. The video only mentions a single lab test, and it is possible (although seems rather poorly designed if true) that the people running this “trial” of MMS made an error in their study design by only having a single blood test at the beginning of the treatment. Again there is no way to determine this from the video itself.

In all likelihood the individuals running this study were mistaken, rather than liars. They looked for any evidence that confirms their beliefs, also known as confirmation bias.

@pjvanerp also has an interesting hypothesis regarding the Red Cross’s involvement in the study, which you can read here. He surmises that the Ugandan Red Crescent Society (an arm of the Red Cross) made a mistake and did invite Koehof to the village of Luuka. It may be that they invited the Water Reference Center, which focuses on purifying water and is not an MMS pusher, to run a trial of water purification on Malaria and that Koehoff, who may or may not have been affiliated with the WRC at the time of the trial, shoehorned MMS into the larger water trial, or that Koehoff hoodwinked either the WRC or the Ugandan Red Cross, or both.

I frankly don’t want to investigate this any further because, based on the light chemistry I’ve written above, MMS does not, and cannot, work as described.

10 Responses

I have used MMS successfully for a vaginal infection that would not heal for years with ANY conventional medication or antibiotic. A light MMS used by douching healed it in one day. Years later after a pap smear… showing abnormal cells, I douched again with it. A retest and sonogram showed no abnormal cells. Been fine ever since.

1. You show 2 statements here:
“Other regulatory organizations, notably the FDA, have stated unequivocally that MMS neither works for any of the medical conditions, nor is it safe for human consumption.”
“No real study has been done of MMS in humans. As far as I’m aware no study has been done in animals. This is because the claims made by pushers of MMS are scientifically ludicrous.”

If no human or animal studies exist – why does the FDA claim it does not work??

This is exactly what the medical system does all the time. The FDA keeps claiming that a product which people are claiming is working (usually a natural product or a NON-synthetic NON-patented one) has “not been approved” or “has not been proven effective” ….implying that it has gone through the process of approval or testing– when it never has and thusly “ not been approved.” The real truth is that no one has ever bothered to put it through a clinical trial or study. For certain products to be FDA “approved” someone has to put it through a clinical trial to prove that it DOES the INTENDED and hand that proof over to the FDA. If it does –it passes.
WHERE are these clinical trials or studies for the FDA or anyone to say MMS is not effective or does what people using it claim it does. WHERE is the science-based-evidence study by which the FDA claims it hasn’t worked? Is there not something fishy about the FDA’s rationalization and declaration?
THAT is ludicrous and barely an intelligent, rational, scientific procedure. In fact, it is none at all. Sounds like a FALSE statement to me.

Particularly when you have many people claiming it is working for them.

2. If people are claiming it works for them, then why not just round them all up and investigate?? Takes notes. DO tests. Would that not be more worth it for everyone? Is not medicine interested in things that WORK??

Does not a doctor ask his patient if the medication he’s given them is working??
Does he not change it if it is not working??
Is there not more than one medication for a given ailment which works differently? Of course.

3. Quote
“This is laughable on its face: something that treats a viral infection wouldn’t do much good against a bacterium, against a fungus, or against a cancer. They are very different medical conditions and require very different treatments. It’s the same reason why antibiotics aren’t effective against viruses.”

Diverse medical conditions/symptoms are treated with the SAME medications. “Off-Label” pharmaceuticals is one example – which are many. Off-label meaning that they can be used for other conditions very different than the condition intended. Psychotropics is another example: seizure medications can be used for Bi-polar depression. On a regular basis these medications are prescribed without the patient knowing this, and patients rarely ask.

You see, many medications affect MANY systems of the body concurrently, thus the SIDE-EFFECTS and secondary illnesses such as kidney disease, pancreatitis, gallbladder/liver stones and cancer for diabetics (insulin results)….. or stroke and heart disease for blood pressure or cholesterol medications (statins)…. or osteoporosis/bones problems and others for proton pump inhibitors (acid reflux meds)…. or leukemia for radiation, etc.
Off-label meds are like secondary “positive” or wanted side-effects.

Also, diverse serious medical conditions OFTEN share the SAME SYMPTOMS, yet they may be treated with different medications. Many of these symptoms are also often thrown out of the process of diagnosis as inconsequential. This makes for many a misdiagnosis. Often for rare diseases. So the assumption “They are very different medical conditions and require very different treatments” is incorrect.

4. Quote:
“Compare that to chemotherapy which produces similar symptoms (nausea and vomiting) but has clear evidence of its efficacy.”

Its efficacy is that nausea and vomiting is because healthy cells are being killed. That’s not much different from why you say MMS is bad.

“Chemotherapy works by killing cells in your body..…..most of which are cancerous cells. Sadly, the chemotherapy can’t really tell the difference between cancer and regular cells, which is why people get very sick while using it. “

Not only that but it virtually kills your immune system – and the very reason why many patients DIE during and after chemo.

Chemo also CREATES leukemia. And while it may put you in remission, remission is not a cure, it simply means you most likely will get cancer back – which many do – because the “treatment” does NOT heal the CAUSE or root of cancer. It just shoots them. Like waiting for your game to reload.

“….mechanism for why it works is very well understood…”

Of course – it does only ONE THING: Kills any cells! Pow!

And yet the mechanism by which Psychotropics work – drugs that CHANGE YOUR BRAIN AND MIND and produce suicide and psychosis and violence and permanent physical disability such as involuntary movements or paralysis – is NOT KNOWN. Only the result wanted is known. Yet many results (side-effects) are also NOT KNOWN. Did you know that many side-effects may continue for years and years sporadically AFTER the medication has been discontinued? So you never know if you are done with it or when – neither does the doctor or scientist. THAT is more than sad.

5. Quote:
“Essentially we are asked to believe the makers of this unsourced video over the Red Cross. In the end, there’s nothing I can write that will convince anyone who is unwilling to believe the Red Cross at their word. “

WORD?? – have we learned nothing yet?

The medical system has been caught red handed doing many illegal horrendous things…. from unconsented vaccination trials in other countries leaving many babies dead and disabled (Kaiser Permanente and CDC)…. to venereal disease trials leaving black people dead or disabled AFTER the cure was found…. Agent Orange on our soldiers….. anthrax on Dessert Storm soldiers leaving many sperm abnormal causing birth defects and illness (my friend)…. Senior citizens left to die for over a decade to see how long they can do without kidney medication to doctor-up insurance limits (Kaiser Permanente and CDC again)……the latest, the medical abandonment of our 911 fire fighters and their resulting disabling illness from ground zero chemical pollution the “officials” lied wasn’t there (my cousin)… many of these with a public apology by the then Presidents!!

So SHOULD we take their WORD for it??

DO they take the WORD of their patients’ experiences complaining about illness or that something outside of medicine healed them??

My doctors (nor the doctors I worked for) didn’t take my word of my 12 year bizarre illness leaving me bedridden sporadically for weeks with over 40 symptoms of many diseases, yet natural medicine and chiropractic healed me within 3 months. Neither did they take the word of those with fibromyalgia nor chronic fatigue syndrome…. yet the numbers are in the millions now. Many of whom are healed with natural medicine when they finally try it (not saying that MMS is natural medicine either though, but it worked for me).

6. Quote:
“The WHO (rightly so) prefers a more sensitive test (i.e. more prone to false positives) than a high specificity test (which would be more prone to false negatives).
In other words they’d rather have people misdiagnosed with Malaria than have someone who has malaria not diagnosed.”

OK… then… the AFTER MMS test results should all have been – false positives again! But they were not. If it misdiagnosed for HAVING Malaria at the beginning, then the after test should have still misdiagnosed as having the same Malaria and not all NOT showing malaria, or at least a greater portion – if MMS did nothing.

7. The solution is easy.
Instead of the FDA or anyone claiming this did not happen or that it can’t happen…. Then wound-up all those people on the video…. Find them and interrogate them to find out the truth if you are really interested in HELPING OR HEALING PEOPLE. Would you not be curious to find out if the healing is true?? Instead of slamming it? Such an IMPORTANT dis-covery????

Or better yet…. Interrogate the people using it already!
Or test the damn thing.

WHYYYYY is this NOT happening???
WHYYY aren’t journalists allowed all over this????
WHYYYY are not the medical authorities all over this????
HARDLY a scientific attitude to have.
Making a public statement WITHOUT a STUDY???

COME ON!! Even I know that’s so STUPID!

There has to be some kind of hush hush for this not to take place… millions dying and not investigate a product people are claiming is helping no matter WHAT it is!
LOOK at those dangerous psychotropics!

8. And yet with all they describe and warn about MMS, with regard to the Chlorine Dioxide specifically however, the use of it is allowed for drinking water treatment plants (our municipal water)….. to fumigate certain fruits…… and for bleaching our flour – all of which we consume.

From the above:
“OSHA regulates the level of chlorine dioxide in workplace air. The occupational exposure limit for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek is 0.1 parts per million (0.28 milligrams per cubic meter [mg/m³]). The EPA has set a maximum contaminant level of 1 mg/L for chlorite in drinking water and a goal of 0.8 mg/L for both the maximum residual disinfectant level for chlorine dioxide and the maximum contaminant level for chlorite in drinking water that has been treated with chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant.’

But not only are we drinking it in our municipal water (8 ounces x 8 glasses xday = ½ gallon xday – that includes water in sodas and refreshments, and THAT is over 8 ounces servings each, and all the ice in it, (not to mention happy hour ices)………… but we eat it in our foods (especially restaurants and fast foods)…………… and we bathe in it which is absorbed via our pores, especially in hot water.

Flour – well we know about loving and craving the pizza and pastas and breads.

So it appears to me that the regulators – and doctors – are not really so concerned for the health aspects. (Not that this excuses use of potentially hazardous or hazardous substances.) Is MMS sounding to them like a big threat? Even if just in its publicity and popularity helping to push the self-healing wave in imaginative ways?
I mean, did you not notice that? Did you not notice that MMS destroys the red blood cells (but so does vinegar and other substances and drugs routinely prescribed) where the malaria resides???? and thus the malaria???? …er..hmm was that not just an admittance that MMS kills malaria?????? with the consequence of anemia – which can be reversed. I don’t know about you, but I would rather recover from malaria and not die and pay with reversible anemia. Especially when it takes just a dose or two of MMS, maybe a few more, to be rid of malaria. How old is Jim Humble? He seems to have a lot of energy to me at his age– no anemia there it seems – flying all over the place (all that radiation)… setting up shop there and there…. Just thinking it slows my arse down… The cost of thousands of red cross volunteers (donated $’s) and others would probably cover the cost of supplemental nutrients to resolve anemia. …Ooops… did I just trip over a not so hidden truth? The cost of red-cross….. are they afraid of losing their jobs? Or whatever bargain they and the WHO and African gov’t have struck? Hmmmm…. Why did the red cross reverse their stance on MMS?
And so…. it IS more worth spending millions on malaria vaccines…
Let’s see… Center for Disease Control… their own words:http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/reduction/vaccine.html
“…The development of a malaria vaccine has faced several obstacles: the lack of a traditional market, few developers, and the technical complexity of developing any vaccine against a parasite….”

Lack of “traditional market”?? 1st rated reason. Ah yes Americans are not prone to malaria… no need to develop vaccines – No wealthy mass market. No millions of potential patients. uh uh. That’s a no no.

“Few developers” – second rated reason. No wealth. No millions. More no wealth. No interest.

“Malaria parasites have a complex life cycle, and there is poor understanding of the complex immune response to malaria infection”

“Complex life-cycle”. Too much money to spend investigating. More no wealth. More No interest.

“There is poor understanding of the complex immune response to malaria infection”… WHY?? Well… no interest. No money. No interest and no money to invest. Only the interested in investigating disease are the wealthy investors – due to the millions required for testing and FDA approval.

Let’s see what else we can find…. Oh…

“…More than a dozen vaccine candidates are now in clinical development, and one, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals’ RTS,S, is in Phase III clinical testing—the first malaria vaccine candidate to advance this far.
Children ages 5-17 months were enrolled in the trial at 11 sites in seven African countries. CDC, in collaboration with the Kenya Medical Research Institute, led the trial at one site in western Kenya….’
So in came multi-billionaire GlaxoSmithKline…
“…The trial’s first results, made available in October 2011….”
“…These results are expected in 2012 and 2014, respectively, and will be critical to understanding how the vaccine may be used to control malaria.”
Uuu …Road map, that sounds HIGH and w i d e……
“…The world’s leading global health organizations have developed the Malaria Vaccine Technology Roadmap for accelerating development of a highly effective malaria vaccine.
The roadmap has two goals:
• Develop and license a first-generation vaccine by 2015 that reduces the risk of severe malaria disease and death by 50% and that protects longer than one year.
• Develop a malaria vaccine by 2025 that would have a protective efficacy of more than 80 percent against clinical disease and that would provide protection for longer than four years.”
Ah yes the “world’s leading global health organizations” – ah ha! pluuuuuurallllllll… Multi muchO dinerO….
Hmmm… first results in 2011…. other expected trial results in 2012 and 2014… Vaccine license GOAL by 2015… by 2025…
Hmm… MUCHO MONEY spent by GlaxoSmithKline and the “world’s leading global health organizations”sssssssss… WHO are they? No mention.
When was that video Red Cross /MMS successful trial in Uganda stopped… 2013? Filmed on Dec 12-15, 2012. When was the FDA warning about MMS… 2014? Crack downs on MMS before that? Of course, a silent behind the scenes, no media, swat team confiscation, arrest, and shut down of MMS CHURCH was not politically/legally possible. They had to de-masculinize to a p–sy legal smear campaign (not my concept –theirs).
Geez… a child can see this. Or maybe not….can frighten him to death without malaria.
So there you have it folks. As you know this is not far off at all. Done that. Like the advocates being killed in Columbia defending their land from American corps wanting to mine gold recently. Not remote at all.

Wow. That leaves me a lot to respond to. First thanks for the comment.

Now, on to my response. You wrote:

I have used MMS successfully for a vaginal infection that would not heal for years with ANY conventional medication or antibiotic. A light MMS used by douching healed it in one day. Years later after a pap smear… showing abnormal cells, I douched again with it. A retest and sonogram showed no abnormal cells. Been fine ever since.

I’m not entirely surprised by that. Industrial grade bleach, which is what MMS is, will kill most any cells. But I would recommend that you seek medical advice before injecting anything into the vaginal canal, especially MMS.

The issue is that MMS is chemically bleach. It is toxic to all cells. Perhaps you killed the nasty bacteria that were causing your infection but your probably decreased the number of beneficial bacteria in the same area.

If no human or animal studies exist – why does the FDA claim it does not work??

Because, simply put, that’s not how Science Based Medicine works. There has to be a reason to perform an experiment. If the experiment proposed defies logic, and would in fact likely cause harm to individuals (both of which situations are true for MMS) then no ethical scientist would perform the study. The fact of the matter is there is no logical reason to assume that MMS would be more beneficial or effective than standard medical treatments for any ailment and in fact the bulk of evidence, (including the reports of individuals being harmed by MMS) indicate otherwise. This isn’t an issue of performing a trial: this is an issue of basic chemistry.

WHERE are these clinical trials or studies for the FDA or anyone to say MMS is not effective or does what people using it claim it does. WHERE is the science-based-evidence study by which the FDA claims it hasn’t worked? Is there not something fishy about the FDA’s rationalization and declaration?THAT is ludicrous and barely an intelligent, rational, scientific procedure. In fact, it is none at all. Sounds like a FALSE statement to me.

So you’re operating on a misapprehension of how scientific studies work. Scientists do not, and in fact cannot (by definition) prove that something doesn’t work. You’re asking the FDA to prove a negative, which is logically impossible. Instead, individuals who wish to make a positive claim (in this instance that MMS works) must provide evidence that it does. None has ever been provided. That’s why the FDA says there’s no evidence that it works. Because there’s no evidence that it works.

2. If people are claiming it works for them, then why not just round them all up and investigate?? Takes notes. DO tests. Would that not be more worth it for everyone? Is not medicine interested in things that WORK??

Well medicine is interested in such things. But most of the time when individuals make these claims they can’t be verified. For example, in the Red Cross trial that I wrote about, further examination showed that the individuals who are “cured” were most likely false positives.

Let’s use this hypothetical example. If a patient has a large cancerous tumor, one that is very recognizable, and treats themselves only with MMS, and has that tumor disappear or even shrink a significant amount, that would indeed be very strong evidence. (I note here that not one such case of this happening has ever been verified to the best of my knowledge). However, that would just be one case. There would be no way of determining whether or not the remission was spontaneous or a result of the MMS. In order to infer causation, you would have to take several individuals, say 100 for a small pilot study, who have the same cancer, with similar sized tumors. Half would get standard treatment (say chemotherapy, radiation and surgery) and half would get MMS. Individuals would be randomly assigned to each group. If, after this test, the MMS group went into remission at a higher rate than those who received standard treatment, then there would be some strong evidence to support MMS. However, the issue is that you cannot ethically run this study because A) MMS is bleach and would certainly cause more harm than good and B) denying individuals treatment that is known to be effective and instead giving them treatment that all science points to being useless and almost certainly damaging is unethical.

Well actually no, bentonite clay doesn’t really absorb bacteria, viruses or fungi any better than any other semi-porous substance that you would ingest. It does have adsorbative properties (meaning it binds certain chemicals in a thin layer upon its surface) although I don’t know if mercury is one of them. Bentonite is actually really only used as a laxative and the FDA actually recommends against its use as a “detox”. You don’t really need to detox anything unless you’re coming off of a bad drug trip, your liver does a fine job of that already.

You see, many medications affect MANY systems of the body concurrently, thus the SIDE-EFFECTS and secondary illnesses such as kidney disease, pancreatitis, gallbladder/liver stones and cancer for diabetics (insulin results)

This is true. But the thing is MMS advocates don’t claim that it will cure 1 or 2 or 3 ailments, they claim it will cure almost ANY ailment, and they do this without providing any reasonable mechanism by which it does so. So I’ll ask you: how exactly can MMS cure cancer, AIDS, Malaria and vaginal infections, or whatever else it’s claimed to cure?

Chemo also CREATES leukemia. And while it may put you in remission, remission is not a cure, it simply means you most likely will get cancer back – which many do – because the “treatment” does NOT heal the CAUSE or root of cancer. It just shoots them. Like waiting for your game to reload.

One: chemotherapy does not create leukemia. Yes, chemotherapy can increase your risk of gaining leukemia later in life, but an increased risk factor is not the same thing as “creating leukemia”. For one, there are individuals who get leukemia who have never had chemotherapy, and two, even though the risk is nearly twice as high, according to a recent study, the risk is still very very low and is well worth it when the benefit of chemo (treating your current cancer) is far greater.

And yet the mechanism by which Psychotropics work – drugs that CHANGE YOUR BRAIN AND MIND and produce suicide and psychosis and violence and permanent physical disability such as involuntary movements or paralysis – is NOT KNOWN.

Actually most psychotropic drugs are quite well studied and the effects are very well known. To which drug are you referring?

WORD?? – have we learned nothing yet?

The medical system has been caught red handed doing many illegal horrendous things….

This and what follows is essentially a tu quoque, poisoning the well and red herring fallacy wrapped up into one. Yes, many individuals have defrauded patients and the government, performed illegal or unethical trials, and lied. Yet these individuals are the exception, rather than the rule, and the evidence points to that.

However, this is all a red herring: the issue is not whose word to trust, but evidence. If there is evidence that MMS cures malaria then where is it? Where are the pre-tests (positive for malaria) and post tests (negative for malaria)? The makers of the video provide no links to data, no evidence to back up their claims. Even if the Red Cross and FDA were in some sort of heinous cabal designed to deny the efficacy of MMS (to what purpose) surely the evidence would exonerate MMS proponents? Where is the evidence?

OK… then… the AFTER MMS test results should all have been – false positives again! But they were not. If it misdiagnosed for HAVING Malaria at the beginning, then the after test should have still misdiagnosed as having the same Malaria and not all NOT showing malaria, or at least a greater portion – if MMS did nothing.

That’s… that’s not how false positives work…

There has to be some kind of hush hush for this not to take place… millions dying and not investigate a product people are claiming is helping no matter WHAT it is!
LOOK at those dangerous psychotropics!

Then there should be some evidence, one single shred of evidence that it works right? Why don’t the MMS peddlers use their own money and fund their own study?

And yet with all they describe and warn about MMS, with regard to the Chlorine Dioxide specifically however, the use of it is allowed for drinking water treatment plants (our municipal water)….. to fumigate certain fruits…… and for bleaching our flour – all of which we consume.

Because ClO2 is unstable and deteriorates after about 4 hours or so. You can put it in water or on fruit and after a couple of hours or so its completely safe because the ClO2 is gone. That’s not what’s happening when you put it directly into your body immediately…

I highly suggest you take a course in basic chemistry and immunology before you promote MMS and its use. Your comment belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic tenants of these sciences.

I had middle ear otitis for 18 month with ear full of liquid, could only hear very low pitched sound & it would seep every now & again, 2 courses of antibiotic & other natural remedies did nothing for it, l started MMS & in less than a week my ear is fine & it also unblocked my sinusis

That may be true, but if so then what is the mechanism? Did a doctor examine you and say the MMS is what treated the infection and not the antibiotics? What was the time frame between the last course of antibiotics and the MMS. Also, how was the MMS administered?

These are questions that a scientist must ask and receive answers to before even considering MMS as a possible explanation for a reduction in symptoms. Simply saying “I took MMS and it cured my X” doesn’t cut it.

Bit like everyday medicine, if it works it works, why so obsesses with proving WHY it works, a bit like CBD oils, they work, but not allowed to use them until pharma can PROVE the method by which it works, absurd.

I’m here to testify about the great work Dr jatto did for me. I have been suffering from Herpes virus for the past 5 years and had constant pain, especially in my vigina. During the first year,I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.This virus started circulating all over my body and i have been taking treatment from my doctor, few weeks ago i came across a testimony of one lady on the internet testifying about a Man called Dr jatto on how he cured her from Herpes type 1 and 2 virus. And she also gave the email address of this man and advise anybody to contact him for help for any kind of sickness that he would be of help, so I emailed him telling him about my Herpes virus he told me not to worry that i was going to be cured!! Well i never believed it,, well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later i started experiencing changes all over me as Dr jatto assured me that i will be cured,after some time i went to my doctor to confirmed if i have be finally healed behold it was TRUE, So friends my advise is if you have such sickness or any other at all you can contact
NOTE THAT THIS GREAT MAN CAN CURE ANY TYPES OF SICKNESS OKAY
(1) malaria
(2) hiv
(3) herpes
(4) penis enlargement
(5) hepatitis A B C
(6) dick enlargement
(7) get your ex back
(8) pregnancy
(9) molluscum
(10) plantar wart
AND OTHERS

Well so here’s the thing about chemicals in the body. A bleach may be diluted enough so that it does not have a noticeable effect on a fabric but could be strong enough to have an interaction within the body.

The case is particularly relevant when it is used as an enema, considering that one of the functions of the intestines is to remove water which will then increase the toxicity of the solution.

Lastly, this isn’t a particularly stable compound and when exposed to air will degrade. After 15 minutes I wouldn’t be surprised if it had degraded too much to have any noticeable effect on the cloth.